I'll grant you there's some overlap of people who are professionals who will own a monitor. My gut tells me that isn't going to be even 1/3rd of the people that we would be talking about though. Regardless it's a pointless discussion without stats.
Shit man, I wish I owned a $5000 tv, but I'm still running a TCL 6 series from like 5 years ago which was good value for money at the time but still nothing compared to modern sets.
My point was more that the display issue is a two-way street. I wouldn’t recommend anyone game on their office monitor, but I also wouldn’t recommend anyone game on their basic bitch 1080p/4K/60Hz/LED TV which are much more common than high-end ones, let alone premium OLED TVs.
It’s 2024 and bog standard TVs no longer suffice for consoles. You want ones with HDR, native 120Hz support (not trash motion interpolation), HDMI 2.0+, and VRR because those consoles struggle to maintain 60fps very frequently and you don’t want all that judder and screen tearing.
It’s no more honest to assume everyone has a good gaming TV than it is to assume they have a good gaming monitor. If you factor in a monitor’s price in the PC build, then it’s only fair you require for the console to have an equally good TV.
These comparisons should be kept at an academic level. We should only compare the value proposition and leave it at that. They always devolve into stupidity, however. On the one hand, you have people building crappy $500 PCs to match consoles, and on the other hand, you have console gamers pretending they don’t have controllers lying around or need to buy a Windows license.
These comparisons are always frivolous and dumb because they miss the point 90% of the time.